Comment by terminalshort
14 hours ago
> In the 20th century, U.S. companies put their excess profits into corporate research labs. Basic research in the U.S. was done in at Dupont, Bell Labs, IBM, AT&T, Xerox, Kodak, GE, et al. This changed in 1982, when the Securities and Exchange Commission ruled that it was legal for companies to buy their own stock (reducing the number of shares available to the public and inflating their stock price.) Very quickly Basic Science in corporate research all but disappeared. Companies focused on Applied Research to maximize shareholder value. In its place, Theory and Basic research is now done in research universities.
I'm not seeing how you get from share buybacks to a shift in priorities in corporate research. If there's a fundamental reason why it can't be done now how it was before the 80's it's not that.
Not why it can’t be done so much as why it isn’t done. Share buybacks allow companies to reward executives directly as their compensation is tied to stock price. If we started not doing that, the priorities might shift, but those executives like things the way they are.
Before Tim Cook Apple had never done a buyback - Jobs was always thinking Apple could do better with the money in R&D than paying off shareholders. Wall Street did not approve of this position, but Jobs wasn’t one to listen to anybody, so it did not matter. Most CEOs are not going to take such a strong position when they, the stockholders, and every other executive can be guaranteed a financial reward through a buyback.
Maybe some of these 2-brain cell executives should consider that their "buybacks" will be worthless when US throughput starts to be equally worthless compared to the rest of the world...
Of course, I'm being a bit pejorative, they aren't thinking big picture at all, just concerned with what happens tomorrow not the day after...
However, they are in part responsible for the nonsense happening at the moment wrt to American policy, it seems like a game who can light cash on fire the fastest ..
> Share buybacks allow companies to reward executives directly as their compensation is tied to stock price.
To be fair share owners also like the stock price to go higher, they also like dividends (and higher dividends would tend to drive the stock price higher too), but an X% increase in share price caused by buybacks is favoured over an X% dividend because it isn’t immediately taxed.
My understanding is that executives prefer buybacks because they mostly are compensated with stock options, which don't pay dividends (until exercised) but which appreciate disproportionately from buybacks.
Also, I believe in the US ordinary dividends are taxed at the income tax rate which is much higher than the capital gains rate.
2 replies →
with everything at record highs we'll see if we continue to prefer inflated share price over reinvestment in the business or increased dividends.
Share buybacks is not some weird loophole that allows executives to get paid.
Companies are always allowed to reward their executives and other employees by giving them money, stock options, or other rewards.
And yet when Jobs returned to Apple he blew up ATG (the Advanced Technology Group) that gave us Quicktime, etc. He also shutdown Apple's research library (and gave all the books to Stanford, I believe).
He seemed to have little patience for "scientists" — preferred engineers that shipped shit.
I think that at best he saw research as expensive, at worst he saw it as elitist.
Wasn't Apple burning money when he joined?
And yet, he went to Xerox PARC and copied their research.
But dividends also result in a concrete financial reward for all shareholders, yes?
> all shareholders
That's the key phrase, they benefit all shareholders. Buybacks on the other hand only benefit the following shareholders:
1. those with regularly vesting stock options and stock grants - basically employees. For non-tech companies especially, this only means high-ranking employees
2. those who intend to sell - that is, soon-to-be-ex shareholders
3. those who borrow against their stock - typically high-net-worth individuals who own a lot of the stock
Stock buybacks are thus a non-egalitarian way to return profits. To reward all shareholders equally, pay dividends.
47 replies →
> But dividends also result in a concrete financial reward for all shareholders, yes?
Yes, but less because in many countries dividends are taxed more than selling shares after a share price increase.
dividends and capital gains are taxed differently
If companies want to reward executives directly they can cut out shareholders entirely and pay salaries and bonuses. If companies want to reward shareholders (including executives) they can pay dividends (which Apple did do under Jobs). Nothing about the priorities of companies changed with share buybacks.
As others have mentioned that isn't comparable because salaries are taxed. The tax rate on unrealized gains in the US is zero percent from what I understand.
For one thing, buybacks aren't charged against profits. Compensation is.
6 replies →
Dumb maybe question: Why couldn’t the companies with excess profits just pay they employees more in salaries?
Companies are controlled by shareholders who appoint the board who appoint the CEO. If the CEO decides to pay employees more, the board will change him because shareholder put money to get money out, not to give to employees.
Companies can give "shares" to employees, which means excess profits can be made dividends out of which employees "touch a bit".
If you would have your own company (privately own and full control) you are of course free to share the excess profit as you see fit.
Edit: and of course, share buy back avoids some taxes that you must pay, which in other schemes would have to be paid.
1 reply →
> Why couldn’t the companies with excess profits just pay they employees more in salaries?
They could, but why should they? Which advantage get the shareholders from this?
The only reason why a company with excess profits "should" pay the employees more is if
i) for a given role, the expected results of potential applicants varies a lot (i.e. the company has an incentive "to hire the best of the best")
ii) the market for these exceptional talents is tough (i.e. if the company does not hire the best, someone else will; additionally, if the company does not pay the employees really well, they will be poached)
That would not make the share price number go up, which in turn means it doesn't make the leadership's net worth number go up, which means the leadership won't make that choice.
1 reply →
Why would they do that when they could pay shareholders and themselves?
6 replies →
The only people who matter are shareholders. Employees are a means to the end of making money for the owners of the company whether through stocks or other kinds of ownership.
That would set a precedent they don’t want. Investors and the Federal government have little interest in labor gaining power.
They could, but then they'd have to report lower profits by the same amount. I want to actually defend this though: Corporate profit is a very narrow measure, by design. It was never intended to capture how well the nation is doing.
For businesses, employees are a necessary evil and not company's beneficiaries.
they don't want to
the purpose of a company is to deliver maximum return to shareholders; if they're not doing that, then they're failing their fiduciary duty and the shareholders might try to force the company to change its ways
the shareholders want the money coming to them, not to the employees
(this is why the Public Benefit Corporation, "B-Corp" structure was invented, so that the company's stated purpose can be something other than simply generating value for its shareholders)
Unfortunately CEOs have to do buybacks at every opportunity, because otherwise shareholders will sue them for failing to maximize shareholder value.
> Jobs was always thinking Apple could do better with the money in R&D than paying off shareholders. Wall Street did not approve of this position, but Jobs wasn’t one to listen to anybody, so it did not matter.
(Head spins) wait what?! No! You’re not supposed to do that! If you fail to always maximize short term profits, people might start thinking CEOs actually have agency, and they won’t be able to hide behind the “maximizing shareholder value” excuse!
> shareholders will sue them for failing to maximize shareholder value
That's quite a bold claim. Do you have an example in which a company/CEO/board was sued specifically for not doing enough buybacks?
4 replies →
The reality seems to be that only the genius founder is allowed to do any unorthodox moves as the CEO. Once he's out, the board selects a CEO that will basically continue business as usual without rocking the boat. The new CEO essentially won't have a mandate to use any controversial or original approach.
Corporate R&D dies under the short-term thinking of quarterly profits. The best pure R&D seems to be coming from private companies that are able to sustain losses for long periods of time until a significant breakthrough is achieved (e.g. SpaceX, OpenAI, etc.).
Share buyback is the same as giving dividends - except the share holder doesn’t have to pay taxes until they sell. To the company, they spend the same amount on share buyback vs giving dividends. I don’t see how this argument holds up.
Further more, while some might argue that corporate R&D is better due to being closer to the problem but it is private research and not shared with the world like university research is.
It's not exactly the same: if the company does buybacks and then loses value or goes bankrupt, shareholders never get the benefit of those buybacks.
Nothing against research universities as good stuff does occur there, but it just seems like it was such a a huge loss seeing those corporate labs disappear. I think it helps to have scientists and engineers closer to the problem and who don't have to spend a huge amount of their time writing grants and training grad students.
Having worked in corporate labs they really were great and it's a shame they're disappearing.
It's not only share buybacks, I would include offshoring, DEI, and a consolidation of management power as major factors in the destruction these labs. The pipeline has been so bad for so long now that it would take a miracle to get things started again.
The last org I worked at offshored the most promising work to China. Due to some high up international agreement the company had to spend $X on offshored workers so not only were they considered cheap they were considered free because the money had to be spent anyway and was coming out of someone else's budget.
I was working at a Research Org when the DEI push came through and it was a absolute disaster. A lot of projects ended their internship programs and avoided hiring in order to minimize the exposure. The bargain was always, you can have 6 seats but 50% need to be women and 50% need to be minorities, and since everyone got the push at the same time it meant that due to the intense competition for the same people you'd end up really having to scrape the bottom of the barrel. That made a lot of initiatives unviable.
I wasn't working at Yahoo Research but as I heard it was canned following a management rift. They were already bleeding talent for a while but had retained some good people that stayed out of comfort and inertia. The smart people cultivated in research orgs tend to be a competing source of power and management hates that.
[flagged]
4 replies →
And you can have a career track that normal people will actually want. The whole phd -> postdoc -> (maybe) tenured professor thing is such misery that I never even gave it a thought as a career.
> it was such a a huge loss seeing those corporate labs disappear.
A loss for whom? Society? Of course, and that's exactly why they don't happen anymore -- because while they were a boon for society they were a terrible bet for the company. And when a company has a choice between doing good for their bottom line or doing good for society, 100% of the time they choose their bottom line.
I mean, look at the legacy of Xerox Parc from Xerox's perspective. They invited this guy in, Steve Jobs, and he commercialized their ideas. Today Xerox is worth pennies on the dollar compared to their height, doing none of what Xerox Parc researched. Apple ate their lunch. The ROI for Xerox Parc was terrible for Xerox.
For all the amazing stuff they did, they were not rewarded by the marketplace for it, they didn't produce better products for themselves, they just did other companies' R&D.
That's where universities come in, and where they are vital. If you take them out, their role will not be filled by corporations, because corpos can't stomach the kind of dollars needed to do fundamental research. Only the government can stomach that, and if somehow the voters are convinced all this isn't worth funding, it just won't happen at any level.
All of your failure examples are failures of management and “leadership”.
The corps won't stomach it anymore at the scale they formerly did, but at one point they did. It could happen again some day...just a lot would have to change.
Parc just didn't capitalize on what they had. I know the Alto was expensive, but still seems like a huge shame.
Yeah if you go check almost any major scientific breakthrough of the past century it usually starts with "some guy was working in a corporate lab with an unlimited budget". We're stagnating as a species a lot more, but at least the shareholders got a payout for their hard work of doing literally nothing. Rent seeking at its worst.
Yes, let's not pay out the investors. That's how you get lots of funding.
1 reply →
It's not even clear that the premise is true. There's lots of 'research' done in the big tech companies.
The biggest reason why companies don't seek to emulate "Dupont, Bell Labs, IBM, AT&T, Xerox, Kodak, GE", is probably that it reads like a list of textbox examples of "companies that failed to execute on their research findings", so clearly there was something wrong with this approach.
That isn’t what they’re textbooks examples of.
GE (under Jack Welch specifically) is a textbook example of how financialization and focusing on numbers at the expense of products destroys companies.
Kodak is a textbook example of disruption. Yes they failed to capitalize on digital cameras specifically, but their research in all other areas was very much acted upon.
Xerox and Kodak, at least, stumbled into the future and then refused it.
The same thing will happen to Google & co.
And DuPont is very much alive doing DuPont things.
My mental model as an outsider, is the vibe out of Google is that they push the most talented folks out via process / politics. Not intentionally, just the reality of squeezing the creative type employee / work. Replacing creative smarts which is difficult or impossible to measure, with operational smarts, more easily measured. Those creative smart people mostly go on to start up other companies.
Its worked out ok for Google and others, because there's little teeth to anti monopoly, so all the big tech players can just buy the successes, which is safer than trying to grow them (esp. once the talent left). I really have no idea if this is an accurate take as its mostly vibes, sans for a few of said smart Google folks I've met in startup land(s). Yet Google is so big, they could bleed all kinds of employees telling all kinds of stories and it could all be simply random. Yet at the same time I can't help but think about every aging tech companies biggest / best products being via acquisition.
While I think monopoly is bad, I don't know if ^ otherwise is so bad. Maybe its just creative type folks _should_ avoid big tech, and build their own labs. Capital and compute are readily available to people who can demonstrate success, and its easier than ever to build and experiment in some fields. i.e. if we had stricter capital accumulation associated taxes, maybe the ills of this process wouldn't be so bad.
...and there's 3M and Würth.
1 reply →
It can appear that some famous companies pursue pure research as a source of public luster.
The bigger problem today is that there is simply nothing more left to research. Everything that is being worked on are at most optimizations, which allways have a dollar spent vs dollar returned amount on them.
“While it is never safe to affirm that the future of Physical Science has no marvels in store even more astonishing than those of the past, it seems probable that most of the grand underlying principles have been firmly established and that further advances are to be sought chiefly in the rigorous application of these principles to all the phenomena which come under our notice.” Albert A. Michelson (yes, that Michelson, one half of Michelson-Morley), 1894
If it feels like there’s nothing for us engineers to research, that’s probably a sign we need more basic research from the scientists!
that patently ridiculous, we're just getting started
4 replies →
I read "stock buybacks in 1982" as shorthand for "financialization and short-term thinking at the expense of long-term gains", which certainly happened across corporate America and Britain starting with Reagan and Thatcher.
You state that as if it is a fact, but from what I see the tech industry has engaged in the longest term corporate strategies I have ever seen. Amazon took losses for the better part of two decades before it showed a profit, and public markets would never even fund a venture like SpaceX.
Amazon is a dystopian nightmare of a company. Amazon took losses in order to decimate their competition. Their business model you hype is evil af. They have to have people planning for when they run out of local workers their warehouses are so bad. They allow in fake fuses and tons of other fake products because they are cool with the risk to peoples lives. Instead of giving you decent search results they sell ad spots.
So yes, Amazon represents 'good management thinking' post 2010. But not corporate thinking pre 1980s that, you know, build the US/UK to the positions they were able to cost on up until now.
In tech it was the switch from creative corporatism, which is focused on opportunities, invention, and infrastructure, to extractive corporatism and oligarchy, which are focused on scams, exploitation, and the creation of rigid hierarchies of privilege.
We're now in the end stage of the latter in the US.
The US still plays at invention - or rather a few of its oligarchs do - but it's far, far behind what's happening in other countries.
Honestly this sounds like a narrative in your head a lot more than something that is happening in actual reality.
share buybacks are sort of a voting mechanism - it shows the company has no other uses for the money than to reward shareholders - hence pumping stock price up.
if the company has a vision - then reinvesting that money into research or what else is better. it might reap the benefits, it might not.
companies use buybacks if they can't do anything productive with the money - Apple is a recent example.
And before buybacks they used distributions, which have always been allowed, so there has been no change there.
> I'm not seeing how you get from share buybacks to a shift in priorities in corporate research
seems to me investing in your own company:
before: use funds actively for research and development
after: use funds passively to "invest" in your company by buying stock
seems like that old parable where someone buries their investment.
EDIT: parable of the talents
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Talents
The article doesn't mention that Bayh-Dole made it legal for a university to exclusively license a patent generated by a government-financed researcher to a corporation.
Prior to this, if a corporation wanted to have exclusive rights to basic patents, they'd have to run their own private research labs to generate those patents. Prior to Bayh-Dole, university inventions were patented but there were no exclusive licensing deals. This means no competitive advantage; anyone can use license the patents (I believe any US citizen) before Bayh-Dole.
So corporations largely stopped funding private research labs like Bell and instead entered into public-private partnerships; on the academic side we saw the rise of the shady enterpreneurial researcher whose business plan was to use government funds to generate patents (not uncommonly based on fraudulent research) which formed the basis of a start-up which was sold to a major corporation.
The fix is simple: patents generated with taxpayer dollars at American universities should be available to any American citizen for a small licensing fee; if people want exclusive rights to patents, they need to put up the capital for the research institution themselves, as was the case with Bell Labs. Practically, this starts with a repeal of Bayh-Dole.
This sounds like a much more reasonable explanation for the fall of the corporate labs.
The obvious retort would be, if the situation were so favorable for corporations before Bayh-Dole, why were so few licensing deals in place before the passage of Bayh-Dole (fewer than 5% of technologies were licensed)?
> So corporations largely stopped funding private research labs like Bell and instead entered into public-private partnerships
They didn't though. Bayh-Dole was 1980. All the big tech firms have invested massively in R&D since then, and I think it's also true for many non-tech industries or tech-adjacent (e.g. chip manufacturing, oil and gas).
Most tech companies appear to put basically all their engineering/ product orgs down as R&D. That's probably not how most people understand the term.
Repealing Bayh-Dole is a terrible idea. A lot of research produces enough to get a patent but still requires a lot more development to get a product. Drugs are probably the best example.
Wouldn't a company still be able to patent the additional development they did to turn the original research into a product? E.g. delivery method patents are very common.
I don't see why they need to own the original research.
2 replies →
At least for AT&T, Kodak, and IBM, what was funding their research divisions was monopoly profits. When those dried up, the research dried up as well. The modern equivalent to AT&T is Google.
Yeah, it's nonsense.
I think the core problem is that innovators typically only capture low single digit percent of the value they generate for society.
Bell Labs existed in an anomalous environment where their monopoly allowed them to capture more of the value of R&D, so they invested more into it.
This is the typical argument for public subsidy of R&D across both public and private settings because this low capture rate means that it is underprovisioned for society's benefit.
Something I haven't seen mentioned in this thread or TFA is just how high corporate taxes were (and even personal investment taxes) in the 50s and 60s, and this influenced spending on R&D immensely because that investment wasn't considered taxable income. Tax rates were over 50% for much of the era of Bell Labs and Xerox PARC.
This is disingenuous.
The driver behind the buybacks was also the motive to shift from research and manufacturing and into profits.
The massive failure is in inaccurately quantifying the true value of these labs.
Of course the relation is minimal if it exists at all.
Stock buybacks are simply a more tax efficient dividend.
Of course, I forgot how management's compensation used to be 'dividend options'.
Ma Bell actually was regulated and mandated to put profits into research. It wasn’t a choice though they could go above the minimums I presume.
> I'm not seeing how you get from share buybacks to a shift in priorities in corporate research.
pretty easily: stock buybacks allow you to directly reward executives and funnel profits back to shareholders (by increasing share prices), making the company appear more valuable (further driving investment)
research brings long-term benefits, and immediate outcomes don't show up in 10-Qs
It is a totally delusional argument. Companies always could reward their shareholders, stock buybacks aren't fundamentally different from paying dividends to shareholders. The idea that stock buybacks are what caused a decrease in company funded basic science is ridiculous.
Only in very rare cases is doing basic science anything but a total waste of money, viewed from a commercial perspective. Companies should seek to be commercial entities, which operate for profit. Anything else is just self destruction.
Look at Bell Labs, it could only exist because some company decided it could use a money shredder. Bell Labs could not survive the dismantling of the Bell telephone monopoly, because ending that monopoly ended the prerequisite that was needed to allow it to exist.
Yes yes, companies used to compensate management with 'dividend options' so switching to stock options totally didn't pervert management's incentives.
And management doesn't manipulate the stock using stock buybacks. Why would they? Their performance and compensation are only completely tied to stock price. But no, stock buybacks don't allow perverse incentives that lead to short term thinking different than dividends. Totally the same.
If you write something which is more than pure sarcasm it might become readable and form into a coherent argument.
Do you genuinely believe that the breakup of the Bell monopoly had a smaller effect on Bell Labs than stock buybacks?
Stock buybacks also are not stock manipulation and managers aren't rewarded because they buy back stocks. The board understand what a stock buyback is, they reward managers for being able to buy back stocks, in other words, they reward them for profits, which are then paid in buybacks or dividends. Stock buy backs are a tool corporations use to reward shareholders, they have no fundamental difference to dividends.
Dividends have the exact same short term incentives. Do you think that a manager can not be rewarded for his paying out dividends, which leads him to cut R&D spending to increase short term profits? It is just delusional to think that there is a difference and certainly in the scientific literature about corporate finance it would be a fringe belief to separate those two as you do.
To be honest it is a bit upsetting to read a comment with so little understanding of the subject and so little imagination. Do you truly believe that managers can not have short term dividend goals? How uninformed are you.
Why not?
Suddenly they had a more lucrative was to spend their money, so they did.
Because before buybacks there were dividends. Did the difference between buybacks and dividends really make the difference between doing basic research and not?
It’s likely, dividends provide higher levels of exponential growth long term for an otherwise steady state company. It makes them more compelling than many long term investments.
Convert X% of a stocks value into a dividend and you pay taxes on that before you can buy more stock, but someone who keeps buying stock sees an exponential return. (Higher percentage of the company = larger dividends)
A company buys back X% of its stock functions like a dividend w/ stock purchase, but without that tax on dividends you’re effectively buying more stock. Adding a tax on stock buybacks could eliminate such bias, but it’s unlikely to happen any time soon.
On one hand, sure. They're able to make an informed decision to maximize return to shareholders.
On the other hand, a ton of amazing inventions came out of that system which created entire industries that went on to turbocharge the economy and create millions of jobs. I can see how someone may feel that a company being able to inflate it's stock price more is less useful to humanity and not worth the trade.
There may have been other reasons as well for the collapse of corporate research like changing tax rates, or maybe we were just in a golden age (1940s-1980s) as new advancements in physics and materials science allowed for a rapid amount of discoveries and now we're back in a slower period.
Science takes years to decades to see a return. Much too long for the quarterly returns folks.
1 reply →
Note the "maximize shareholder value" aspect. That's the essential driving force behind business since then: The Friedman doctrine.
Now consider the choices a company makes when executives hold the Friedman doctrine as orthodoxy. Put money into basic research that might generate shareholder value in some unknown time, or buy their own stock back and pump up the price?
Where do you think the capital being returned is going? If it's not being consumed but instead is mostly getting reinvested somewhere else than what is the problem? Capital markets are working as intended to move capital out of a firm that cannot generate high returns with it into ones that can.
Why would companies not want to maximize their value before share buybacks?
Your question is a reflection of just how engrained the Friedman doctrine has become in business. Milton Friedman introduced his theory in 1970, but it really got a boost in the 80s. First in 1981 when President Reagan named him to his Economic Policy Advisory Board and again in 1988, when Reagan gave him the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the National Medal of Science.
There are still many competing theories of business ethics, but the Friedman doctrine is what drives corporations today.
1 reply →
Loads of reasons. The shareholder theory of corporate governance is actually not very old.
1 reply →
Buying back stock is just as a way to distribute money to shareholders. It's neutral when it comes to "shareholder value". It's the same as paying dividends and having some shareholders reinvest it.
It just saves an extra step and doesn't trigger tax event. It also makes more sense. If you prefer cash you sell it on the market to the company. If you prefer holding shares you don't do anything. You get a choice when it cash out instead of being forced to on regular basis.
You're not missing anything, it's just completely wrong.